Case 3306442/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Bowler v I.SO.D. Limited and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3306442/2019
- Decision date
- 26 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss E Bowler
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 default judgment dated 19 November 2019 and sent to the parties on 26 November 2019. The tribunal recorded that Miss E Bowler’s claims of automatically unfair dismissal, unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy, and sex discrimination succeeded as against the second and third respondents, namely Sasi Shiri and Ivhak Heby. The judgment did not determine remedy at that stage; it stated that the remedy to which the claimant was entitled would be determined at the Final Hearing.
The judgment also recorded that the claims would proceed against the first respondent, I.SO.D. Limited. It further noted that the second and third respondents would only be entitled to take part in the hearing to the extent permitted by the tribunal hearing the case.
The case was listed for Final Hearing on 18 and 19 May 2020. No monetary award was made in this judgment, and no split of compensation or other remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rule 21 judgment: the claim succeeded against the second and third respondents only, with remedy to be determined at the Final Hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Rule 21 judgment: the claim succeeded against the second and third respondents only, with remedy to be determined at the Final Hearing. | Upheld | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Rule 21 judgment: the claim succeeded against the second and third respondents only, with remedy to be determined at the Final Hearing. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.